You believe short term deficits are a price worth paying for job creation. All stimulus, however, is not created equal. You want the most bang for your buck. The multiplier effect of the best stimulus provides for the greatest short term growth. This multiplier is what makes short term deficits pay off. As the economy grows, debt-to-GDP shrinks, inflation aids borrowers, revenue goes up, demand increases, etc. So let's have a look at stimulative programs:
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_GMkD4mFrFxw/TH49Y6JmDoI/AAAAAAAAD1Q/SYY2OZaRMA4/s1600/Fiscal+multipliers+in+US.jpgWhat you'll notice is that the benefit of tax cuts and credits is dwarfed by the benefit of spending in almost all cases. There is a chart from WaPo making the rounds, arguing we get "more" than the GOP in the tax cut deal. But you'll notice that absent the very necessary and worthwhile UI funding ($56 billion), which really is important and very stimulative, what we get is tax cuts and credits.
These are stimulative, but hardly our best option. Worse, tax cuts are the can that always gets kicked down the road, often in order to threaten us with a fatal stumble during election season. We lacked the political will to end tax cuts with majorities in Congress and a president in office, and in fact we seek to add to them with a ~1000% increase in the estate tax exclusion, a 20% cut in the top rate, etc. What are our chances without the House, and perhaps without the Senate in '13?
So in exchange for the hyper-partisan recklessness of the GOP policy, we get the least partisan and most meager stimulative measures for ourselves. Other than UI, these are going to be extremely difficult to drop in favor of more stimulative spending, and are fodder for the whole tax cut ethos that is blowing long-term holes in the budget. We want the best stimulative measures, to be paid for by short-term deficit spending. We are receiving some of the worst. Is it for the "short-term?" As we've seen with the Bush tax cuts, that is uncertain to say the least.